Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Julie Kopmeyer
alerts to an interesting disagreement in Ohio.The Roman Catholic Diocese of Cleveland ran “Faithful
Citizenship” programs in the parishes to assist Catholics in forming their
consciences in preparations for the elections.

Well, it turned out
that the programs were hijacked by Obama supporters, such as Karen Leith, and
downplayed “non-negotiables” such as abortion and pushed “social justice” and the
like.

Liberals hijacking
churches for their political ends – where have I seen that before?

Anyway, the Bishop
of Cleveland, Richard Lennon, is putting his foot down about this. In every bulletin this Sunday (assuming
the libs don’t hijack those as well) will be a letter from him making it clear
that the non-negotiables are
non-negotiable and are far more important than issues such as immigration
reform. In his words, such issues “only
matter if human life itself is a value of fundamental priority and is always
protected. If human life is expendable, these other issues lose much of their
significance.”

Friday, October 26, 2012

I have been
hesitant to post further on what can now be called the Benghazi scandal.For the Obama Administration and their
enablers in the news media have thrown up enough mirrors and fog to make it
difficult to get one’s arms around this.(Not-so-by-the-way, imagine media reporting of this if a Republican
administration had acted as the current White House has.)

But I’ve come
across an excellent succinct summary of Benghazi. Please read it for yourself. But if I may further condense the most important points:

1. Obama and his
people knew what transpired in Benghazi on 9-11.

2. He, and they,
lied about it again and again.

3. Most despicably,
they made a youtube video maker the scapegoat and “for all intents and purposes
a political prisoner being held because he exercised his First Amendment
rights.”

4. Obama has showed
himself to not only be utterly negligent but also completely untrustworthy.

Some are
speculating that Benghazi and the subsequent lying are dragging Obama
down.

In my almost infallible
election prediction, I mentioned that Democrats are becoming so unhinged, they
could make matters worse.I think
this already infamous ad makes matters worse.

So the Obama
campaign wants us to think voting for The One is like sex? Really? REALLY?

Leaving aside the
disturbing cult of personality displayed in the ad (And do note an analogous
Putin ad over at Hot Air.), it is a combination of desperation and poor
judgement. It obviously
tries to renew the tingly feelings of those misguided youth who voted for Obama in
2008. But it is just as likely to
remind them that they voted for Obama, and he, well, screwed them. The ad practically begs for that interpretation, especially in irreverent youthful minds.

It makes Obama look
that much more unpresidential during a time when Romney has established himself
as presidential. It is more likely
to offend rather than win undecided voters. It will further alienate older voters and Black churchpeople, with whom he is already on thin ice with
his support of gay marriage.

(Yes, I know Obama will take the Black vote. But any defection or failure to turn
out hurts him. Tepidness in Black
support could doom him.)

I really cannot see
any scenario in which this ad helps Obama more than it hurts him. And, yes, it does reek of desperation. This ad may contribute to Obama . . .
doing himself in.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

The polls I put the most weight
on, Rasmussen and Gallup, are breaking for Romney. Rasmussen daily tracking this morning (but taken before the
last debate) has Romney 50% to Obama 46%.
The latest Gallup polls also have Romney over 50%. Late deciders tend to break against the
incumbent, especially when the economy has been punk under the incumbent. That is what we are seeing now, and it's not over.

And, yes, I expect this trend
to be strong enough for Romney to carry Ohio. He has gained there, and polls have him roughly tied. Ohio will continue to move toward
Romney.

In addition, the vote for
Romney (and against Obama) is more intense and angry/enthusiastic than for
Obama. One very helpful measure of
this is Rasmussen’s Presidential Approval Index. It persistently shows between 40% and 45% strongly disapprove
of Obama, much more (now more than 16 more) than the percentage who strongly
approve of Obama. So I expect the
turn out will be much more favorable to Republicans than 2008, though perhaps
not quite as favorable as 2010.

I just do not see a big event
coming to save Obama as much as a few may try to manufacture one. In fact,
Democrats are becoming so unhinged, they could easily say something to make
things worse. They are acting
pretty silly already with binders and such.

Now here’s where I am a real outlier
– the Republicans will take the 50 seats they need to control the Senate (with
Veep Ryan providing the tiebreaking vote if needed). This will be a ticked-off had-enough election like
1980. Yes, Obama is Carter Redux
in more ways than one. And in 1980, the big shocker wasn’t Reagan winning, but
the GOP gaining twelve Senate seats.
The GOP won’t gain twelve this time, but they will surprise again and
take the Senate if by the skin of their teeth.

Whether my prediction is
useless or useful, I’ll let you be the judge.

Friday, October 19, 2012

A. S. Haley, aka the Anglican
Curmudgeon, has posted painstaking analysis of the Episcopal Church’s attack on
the Diocese of South Carolina.What I find most disturbing is the use of double jeopardy as a modus operandi.

In 2011, the Disciplinary Board for
Bishops looked at the charges against the Bishop of South Carolina, Mark
Lawrence, and did not find him guilty
of “abandonment.” Yet in
2012 the Disciplinary Board did find him guilty.

So what changed? The board’s
membership. Presiding Heretic
Schori was able to stack the board at the 2012 General Convention, and having
done so, her people pushed the same charges against Lawrence and found him in
“abandonment” this time.

Yes, this is double jeopardy. We see
here “the tactic of bringing up the same charges over and over again until
there is a majority in favor of them.”

Now this is legal. The Episcopal Church may commit double
jeopardy in its deliberations if it wishes. The U. S. Constitution is not part of the Canons of The
Episcopal Church. But it is a sad
commentary that not only does TEC not hold to Biblical standards, it cannot
even bring itself to meet minimal secular standards of fair play anymore.

Meanwhile, those who filed the
complaints against +Mark Lawrence have revealed themselves. They claim to have acted independently,
that “no one from elsewhere in the Episcopal Church encouraged or initiated the
complaint.” Yeah, right.

Their number is 14, twelve laypeople and only TWO priests. That --Schori did not
find more tools than that speaks volumes.

This action is a deplorable assault upon the Bishop of
this Diocese. The attack came in the midst of negotiations whose stated intent
was to find a peaceful solution to our differences with the Episcopal Church.
It involved a process in which there was no prior notice of the proceedings, no
notice of the charges against him nor any opportunity to face the local accusers
(who remained anonymous until today).

Also deeply concerning is the fact that all of the stated
reasons for “abandonment” were known nearly a year ago, when an earlier attempt
to remove him failed. This second attempt is double jeopardy of the most
egregious sort and is contrary to the very canons they have used. Worst of all,
canons that were originally meant for the removal of clergy who had well and
truly “left” the church are now being used to purge a Bishop who has diligently
sought to keep his Diocese both intact and within the Episcopal Church.

. . . it strains every notion of common sense to apply the charge of
"abandonment" in this case. This is a provision that is in canons to
make it expeditious to deal with a priest or bishop who has openly decamped to
another ecclesial body, or none; a cleric who stops showing up for meetings,
stops worshiping as an Episcopalian, and disavows any association with the
Episcopal Church.

By contrast, since I became a bishop in March of last year, Mark
Lawrence has attended every meeting of the House of Bishops except one, which a
great many bishops also missed because it was held in Ecuador. He was present
at General Convention. He has continued to lead a diocese that uses the
Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer in its worship. He has abandoned
nothing, and to accuse him of doing so is ludicrous on its face.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

The new --Schori puppet Disciplinary
Board for Bishops of The Episcopal “Church” (TEC) has declared that the Bishop
of South Carolina has abandoned TEC.This triggers provisions previously passed by the Diocese which now take
it out of TEC.So, in effect,
Presiding “Bishop” Schori has kicked the Diocese of South Carolina out of her
Unholy “Church” . . . and will now send in her lawyers to attempt to seize all
the diocese’s assets, of course.

Given that the Bishop of SC,
Mark Lawrence, has taken great pains to keep South Carolina in TEC while upholding
the Faith and guarding the integrity of his diocese and parishes, I find this
attack shocking.

But I probably should not be
shocked. As Sarah Hey points out,
Schori and company are a vindictive bunch, “utterly amoral, bullying, and
controlling.”And, back in 2006, I asserted time
and again that there is no safe place for the orthodox in The Episcopal
Church. Now I am proven right . .
. again.

Christopher Johnson suspects the
presenting issue was that +Lawrence acted to allow parishes to protect their
property. Given the sheer greed
and vindictiveness of --Schori, that might be so.

Although I would have questioned
trying to stay in The Episcopal Church as the Diocese of South Carolina has,
they have done us the service of showing us just how implacable TEC has
become. Bow down to Great Whore of
815 and all her abominations, or else.

Stand Firm and the AnglicanCurmudgeon have followed this matter closely and surely will continue to do so, and
I defer to them for more in-depth coverage.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

During last night’s debate, we
saw a brazen display of cheating.The most egregious instance was supposed Moderator Candy Crowley
intervening with her little fact check (which turned out to be an inaccurate one)
in blatant violation of debate rules:

"The
moderator will not... intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the
questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate
comments during the 2 minute response period."

I don’t know how many times
Obama and Biden have lied during these debates. But not once has a moderator fact-checked them during the
debate. Nor should they. The time for that is afterward, except
for the candidates themselves who can and should fact-check each other. Candidates
are to debate the facts with each other, not the moderator. Candidates are to give answers, not the moderator.

Last night was the last straw
for me. I am fed up with these
so-called moderators from the liberal news media. Hell, let’s give up the pretense that they are fair
facilitators of debates. Let’s
give the news media a podium right up there on stage and let them debate the
Republican candidate right along with the Democrat. Because that is practically what really happened last night. It was blatant cheating that affected
the debate, and it is an outrage.

And, by the way, in all three
debates, Obama/Biden was given more time than Romney. And no wonder - the moderators keep interrupting
Romney/Ryan. Some moderators.

Friday, October 12, 2012

I am a bit behind on getting
things done today.So I will have
to keep this brief.

I think the most important
moment of the debate was Joe Biden claiming on Libya, “We weren’t told they
wanted more security there. . . We did not know they wanted more security
there.”

Given repeated reports and
testimony that our people in Libya did ask the Obama Administration for more
security, this reveals either gross incompetence or more lying . . . probably
both actually.

Also important is that Biden
pinned a lot of blame on supposed bad intelligence. It would not surprise me to see more leaks that debunk that
line. For I doubt our intelligence
community appreciates being thrown under the bus to cover up for Obama.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Project Veritas has done great
work exposing how easy it is to commit vote fraud. Now they have caught on camera the Obama Campaign and
Democrats knowingly and cheerfully assisting in the commission of vote fraud.

And given Project Veritas’ history,
there may well be more to come.

(UPDATE: Sure enough, a second video is up.I don’t think it
quite as incriminating as the first one, but still . . . )

As for the impact on the
election of this being exposed, we’ll see. I hope nationwide anger over this will at least offset
fraudulent Democrat “votes”.

CEO David Siegal has emailed his employees and more or less told them that there will be lay-offs if Obama is
re-elected.For taxes and other
costs of business have and would become so bad under Obama that working,
hiring, and taking risks just isn’t worth it to him:

Obviously, our present government
believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country.
The fact is, if I deducted 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't
work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their
hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.

Business is at the heart of America and
always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it.
However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the
essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from
the truth and this is the type of change they want.

So where am I going with all this? It's quite
simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current
President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company.
Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer
jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone. . . .

You see, I can no longer support a system
that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to
work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your
opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the
beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

That
may sound mean. He (along with yours truly) is more blunt than most. But he is not alone. There are a lot of Americans who can say with the Atlas Shrugged II
trailer, “I will not be a slave.”
If you tax job creators at rates of 40%, 50% or more, that is nothing
less than tax slavery. Why take
the risks and work hard if half or more of the profits of success are taxed
away? Lose, you lose; win, you
only half win – that’s a sucker’s game.

And
why take risks and do the things that create jobs if you think the economy is
going down? That bogus 7.8%
unemployment number aside, there are numerous indicators that we are about to
slip back into recession. Just
this morning, Cummins Engine announced that they expect “to reduce its
workforce by between 1000 and 1500 people by the end of the year.” (And as I type this, the Jolts Survey on job openings is out and is virtually unchanged.)

My personal business is very
small. But if Obama is re-elected,
I will act on the assumption that America is going to Hell. For I am convinced it will under more
Obama. And what I intend will not
help the U. S. economy (except hopefully to conserve principal to invest if and when things get better one day). If the United States is intent on going to Hell, I do not intend to go with
it. And, again, I am not alone.

Sorry if this is not cheerful
and flag waving. But a reality
check is needful here. I, David
Siegel, and countless others would much rather make economic choices that help
the economy and help it soon. But if the electorate
of this country vote to go to economic Hell and turn investors and businesspeople
into tax slaves, we will adjust our economic choices accordingly. And that will contribute to tipping this country back into recession,
if not worse.

Tuesday, October 09, 2012

Robert+ Munday is examining the
2011 New International Version translation of the Bible.And already he has noticed an enormity
that disqualifies the whole enterprise in my mind.(And I should note now that he deals with this more
gently than I will.)

Here is Psalm 8: 4-6 in the 1984
NIV:

4 what is man that you are
mindful of him,

the son of man that you care for
him?

5 You made him a little lower
than the heavenly beings

and crowned him with glory and
honor.

6 You made him ruler over the
works of your hands;

you put everything under his
feet

I’ve never been a fan of the
NIV. But I have no objections
there. That is a fair and accurate rendering. But now look at what that passage has become in the 2011 NIV:

4 what is mankind that you are
mindful of them,

human beings that you care for
them?

5 You have made them a little
lower than the angels

and crowned them with glory and
honor.

6 You made them rulers over the
works of your hands;

you put everything under their
feet

As Munday points out (Again,
more politely than I.), the 2011 rubs out an important Messianic term, “the son
of man,” replacing it with the vomitous “human beings” to appease the gods of
gender neutrality or inclusiveness or whatever that clap trap is called.

“Son of man” is an important
Messianic title in both Old and New Testaments, used frequently by Jesus no
less. And this passage in
particular is quoted as referring to the Messiah in Hebrews 2:5-9. There is no excuse for rubbing this important
title out of Psalm 8. None.

It’s not for nothing that
Missouri Synod Lutherans are joining Southern Baptists in recommending the NIV
2011 not be used.

Monday, October 08, 2012

More and more keeps coming out
about the Obama Administration’s willful negligence in defending our ambassador
and staff in Libya.

The latest is that, in August, the
Obama Administration withdrew a 16 member Special Ops team from Libya assigned
to protecting the ambassador and embassy staff in spite of Ambassador Stevens’
pleas about security and desire that the Special Ops team stay.

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens
wanted a Security Support Team, made up of 16 special operations soldiers, to
stay with him in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August,
the commander of that security team told ABC News.

The embassy staff’s “first choice was
for us to stay,” Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, 55, told ABC News in an interview. “That
would have been the choice of the embassy people in Tripoli.” …

Asked for comment to the memo and
Wood’s comments, a spokesman for the House Oversight Committee told ABC News:
“Diplomats working in Libya viewed security provided by highly trained
Americans as critical to their safety and mission. The Oversight Committee’s
investigation continues to seek answers about why — even as threats against
Americans increased — senior State Department officials erroneously decided
such security was no longer needed.”

Investigators are exploring whether
anyone at the State Department told the Embassy specifically not to request
another extension.

Again, this is part of a willful
negligence in defending our people in Libya. This is beyond scandalous and should be the last straw in
bringing down Obama, and Hillary as well. . . . Note that I said "should".

-----

Note: Yes I had a typo in the title. The Specials are a ska group; and it is still morning . . .

A brief follow-up to my last
post.Sarah Hey of Stand Firm has
posted the best explanation of what likely happened when TEC “Bishop” Marc
Andrus was not seated at the installation of the new RC Bishop of San
Francisco.

If anyone knows for sure what
happened, they aren’t saying yet.
But I would be willing to bet depreciating dollars on Ms. Hey’s version.

Friday, October 05, 2012

This much we know - TEC “Bishop”
Marc Andrus went to attend the Mass for the installation of the new RC Archbishop
of San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone, but was detained by staff.When the service began without him, he
left.

But exactly why he was detained,
and whether he arrived to the service on time is a mystery. Andrus’ version from his blog:

I was dropped off at the cathedral at
1:30PM by my assistant. After making my way around protestors and showing my
invitation to security guards, I was in the lower level area to which I was
directed by 1:40.

The instructions the Archdiocese had
given my assistant were that I should be at St. Mary's by 1:45. The service was
scheduled to begin at 2.

I identified myself to an assistant to
the archbishop, who spoke to someone through a headset, saying, "Bishop
Andrus is here."

I saw the Greek Metropolitan, a good
colleague of mine, who was in the same room with me, several Greek Orthodox
priests, archdiocesan employees and security guards. I greeted the metropolitan
and we spoke briefly.

An archdiocesan employee attempted to
escort me upstairs with the Greek Orthodox group, but was stopped from doing so
by the employee to whom I had first identified myself. This person, who
appeared to be in a superior role, instructed another employee to stand with
me.

At this point no other guests remained
in the downstairs area. The employee and I chatted while waiting. I began to
wonder about the time holdup. I checked my phone; it was 1:50PM. I asked the
employee standing with me if the service indeed started at 2, which she
affirmed.

At 2PM, when the service was to begin,
I said to the employee, "I think I understand, and feel I should
leave." Her response was, "Thank you for being understanding." I
quietly walked out the door. No one attempted to stop me. No attempt was ever
made to explain the delay or any process for seating. I arrived early, before
the time given my assistant, and waited to leave until after the service had
begun.

My intention for attending the
installation was to honor our ecumenical and interfaith relations in the Bay
Area.

But an Archdiocean spokesman
says he was late and then did not wait long enough to be seated:

San Francisco Archdiocese spokesman
George Wesolek chalked it up to a misunderstanding. Andrus had arrived late and
missed the procession of interfaith clergy who were to be seated up front.
Church staff were looking for an opportunity to bring the bishop in without
disrupting the service, according to Wesolek. When they went to retrieve him,
he had already left.

“We had no intention of excluding him
at all,” Wesolek said. “If he felt like because of the wait that was insulting
to him, we certainly will apologize.”

I do not know what to conclude
except that Marc Andrus had best learn that neither the world nor the church
revolves around him, nor any other apostate “bishop”. And he’s supposedly Anglican. He should know by now to show up to church early, not barely
on time or late, especially for a big service.